4 ms·

I think this is a huge marketing problem, stemming from the ability for large companies to market directly to children, and I don't think it's a coincidence tha

I think this is a huge marketing problem, stemming from the ability for large companies to market directly to children, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations (if not the only, I couldn't find another in a quick search) that has ZERO regulation in terms of what and how companies can advertise to children (outside of bans on cigarettes and alcohol of course.) Kids are extremely easy to manipulate with ads because they don't have the experience and the awareness to understand the differences between the shows they're watching and the ads they're consuming.

roymurdock 11y ago
I remember watching a ton of sugary cereal commercials as a kid. I'm pretty sure Kellogs was banned from advertising cereals that did not meet some minimum health requirement in 2007. [1] With that said, it's ultimately the parent's responsibility to make sure the kid is eating healthy foods. I was recently at an amusement park cafeteria and I saw lines out the door of parents and their children holding huge green refillable cups, waiting for their turn at the Coke fountain drink machines. Many of the kids were clearly overweight. It struck me as terribly sad and unfair that the kids did not know any better than to enjoy sugary drinks, but that the parents knew exactly what they were feeding their children and just didn't care. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kellogg-wont-market-sugary-cereal-to-kids/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kellogg-wont-market-sugary-cerea...
- mikeash 11y ago
  Don't be so sure the parents are aware of the problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/05/12/95-percent-of-parents-think-their-overweight-children-look-just-right/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/0...
  - adekok 11y ago
    My experience in California was light years from my experience in France. The bulk of school lunches provided by the parents were low-grade junk food. Sugar, snacks, and empty calories. The kids with vegetables and a balanced diet were in the minority. I saw an article while I was in California about a high school of last resort for juvenile delinquents. The reporter visiting it was shocked that the school was quiet, and the kids were well behaved. The reason (according to the principal) was largely diet. The school had a cafeteria with organic food (some subsidization). About 1-2 months after a new kid entered the school, the behavor problems went away. I can't find the link now, but I did find some related ones: "Dietary management of juvenile delinquency", http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Feingold-delinq79.pdf http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Feingold-delinq7... "Nutritional influences on aggressive behavior", http://orthomolecular.org/library/articles/webach.shtml http://orthomolecular.org/library/articles/webach.shtml
- Renaud 11y ago
  The issue is that kids that grew up without a healthy approach to food become the very parents that perpetuate the behaviour; they just don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to good eating habits, either at home, on the tv or at school. It's a social thing. The parents are clearly responsible for educating their kids, but as a society we shouldn't think it's OK to advertise and serve dangerous crap to kids and just assume that this doesn't affect behaviour (the very purpose of advertisement is that it affect people's behaviour, I always found it strange that we then blame them for being influenced). You have to start very early to educate kids senses to appreciate flavours more subtle than fat, salt and sugar. When Jamie Oliver attempted to change the horrendous 'meals' served to kids in the UK, he hit this very issue: lots of kids preferred to eat their crisps and junk food rather than the balanced, healthy and tasty meals prepared for them by a top chef (meals that didn't cost more than the crap they were usually served). Contrast that to the meals served in schools in France: they are balanced, varied, there is always some choice. You will always find a choice of starter, main course, cheese/yoghurt and dessert. These kids find it normal to eat their vegetables. Parents wouldn't have it otherwise. In France at home, most people actually cook. Everyone orders pizza once in a while, but the vast majority of meals are actually cooked from fresh. It's not a money thing: you can get cheap produces. It's a cultural thing: cooking is fun, it's a skill people pass down the generations, it's time well spent, it's something to be proud of, it's a part of normal life.
  - knughit 11y ago
    In the USA we believe that once you turn 18 you are an adult and responsible for yourself, and have no right to blame your upbringing (parents, and schools, and doctors) for any of your mental, health, and economic deficiencies. And that's the problem with USA.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  The problem is that obesity increases risk for all sorts of conditions: heart disease, arthritis, type-2 diabetes and all the problems that that brings on (neuropathy, retinal degeneration, kidney failure), nevermind the stigma from being too fat. And so on. It's easy to say that it's the parents' fault that their children are overweight, but everyone else gets to deal with the fallout. With childhood obesity rates approaching 30 % in places, the extra burden on the medical system is staggering. Horace was very much to the point when he said it's your problem when the neighbour's apartment is on fire.
maxaf 11y ago
My child doesn't watch TV, and is surrounded by ad blockers of all possible varieties. Consequently she rejects food that she can't break down easily into ingredients with plain English names. The more general problem with America is the prevalence of business models that depend on sales of people's attention. "If it's free, you're the product" is such an integral part of living in the US these days that most people don't even realize how deeply in hock they are. Cutting the cord, abandoning traditional TV programming (including daytime content-less shows and infomercials) and fighting the good fight against ads will eventually leave consumers free to make their own decisions. I'm worried only that it might take too long: the genetic damage to humanity will already be done.
such_a_casual 11y ago
> they don't have the experience and the awareness to understand the differences between the shows they're watching and the ads they're consuming citation? There's no way anyone under 18 just lacks the ability to distinguish between commercials and the program they're watching. Source: was once a kid
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >distinguish between commercials and the program // Perhaps the parent means the purpose for the programs and the commercials - as in that the commercials aren't just there to entertain you but to manipulate you in to wanting a particular product. Mind you essentially you can say the program is just there to soften you up and create a method to feed your brain the marketing message of the commercials ...
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    My disbelief still stands. What is the age range for human beings who can't distinguish between commercials and programs? You don't think kids get irritated when they're shows are interrupted by commercials? To me this just comes across as an excuse for bad parenting. There were junk food commercials on tv when I was a kid, but I didn't get to have them, because I didn't have money to buy them.
- Joof 11y ago
  Anecdote, yu-gi-oh; bey-blades; etc. People in general don't really realise the impact that advertising has on them even if they are aware of them.
magicmu 11y ago
What you're saying (and the somewhat muted point in the article) about advertising is totally true, but I don't think it just applies to children. People are hugely susceptible to advertising, which is why it is, and always has been, extremely effective if done correctly. It's especially disturbing when children are specifically targeted by advertisements pitching products are that demonstrably harmful, but it's not the exception. I think that one of the main reasons that most parents don't heavily discourage or forbid their children from watching these ads is that they themselves aren't aware of the broader picture. In that vein, I think education is just as important, if not more-so, than regulation of advertisers.

roymurdock 11y ago

I remember watching a ton of sugary cereal commercials as a kid. I'm pretty sure Kellogs was banned from advertising cereals that did not meet some minimum health requirement in 2007. [1] With that said, it's ultimately the parent's responsibility to make sure the kid is eating healthy foods. I was recently at an amusement park cafeteria and I saw lines out the door of parents and their children holding huge green refillable cups, waiting for their turn at the Coke fountain drink machines. Many of the kids were clearly overweight. It struck me as terribly sad and unfair that the kids did not know any better than to enjoy sugary drinks, but that the parents knew exactly what they were feeding their children and just didn't care. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kellogg-wont-market-sugary-cereal-to-kids/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kellogg-wont-market-sugary-cerea...

mikeash 11y ago
Don't be so sure the parents are aware of the problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/05/12/95-percent-of-parents-think-their-overweight-children-look-just-right/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/0...
- adekok 11y ago
  My experience in California was light years from my experience in France. The bulk of school lunches provided by the parents were low-grade junk food. Sugar, snacks, and empty calories. The kids with vegetables and a balanced diet were in the minority. I saw an article while I was in California about a high school of last resort for juvenile delinquents. The reporter visiting it was shocked that the school was quiet, and the kids were well behaved. The reason (according to the principal) was largely diet. The school had a cafeteria with organic food (some subsidization). About 1-2 months after a new kid entered the school, the behavor problems went away. I can't find the link now, but I did find some related ones: "Dietary management of juvenile delinquency", http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Feingold-delinq79.pdf http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Feingold-delinq7... "Nutritional influences on aggressive behavior", http://orthomolecular.org/library/articles/webach.shtml http://orthomolecular.org/library/articles/webach.shtml
Renaud 11y ago
The issue is that kids that grew up without a healthy approach to food become the very parents that perpetuate the behaviour; they just don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to good eating habits, either at home, on the tv or at school. It's a social thing. The parents are clearly responsible for educating their kids, but as a society we shouldn't think it's OK to advertise and serve dangerous crap to kids and just assume that this doesn't affect behaviour (the very purpose of advertisement is that it affect people's behaviour, I always found it strange that we then blame them for being influenced). You have to start very early to educate kids senses to appreciate flavours more subtle than fat, salt and sugar. When Jamie Oliver attempted to change the horrendous 'meals' served to kids in the UK, he hit this very issue: lots of kids preferred to eat their crisps and junk food rather than the balanced, healthy and tasty meals prepared for them by a top chef (meals that didn't cost more than the crap they were usually served). Contrast that to the meals served in schools in France: they are balanced, varied, there is always some choice. You will always find a choice of starter, main course, cheese/yoghurt and dessert. These kids find it normal to eat their vegetables. Parents wouldn't have it otherwise. In France at home, most people actually cook. Everyone orders pizza once in a while, but the vast majority of meals are actually cooked from fresh. It's not a money thing: you can get cheap produces. It's a cultural thing: cooking is fun, it's a skill people pass down the generations, it's time well spent, it's something to be proud of, it's a part of normal life.
- knughit 11y ago
  In the USA we believe that once you turn 18 you are an adult and responsible for yourself, and have no right to blame your upbringing (parents, and schools, and doctors) for any of your mental, health, and economic deficiencies. And that's the problem with USA.
HarryHirsch 11y ago
The problem is that obesity increases risk for all sorts of conditions: heart disease, arthritis, type-2 diabetes and all the problems that that brings on (neuropathy, retinal degeneration, kidney failure), nevermind the stigma from being too fat. And so on. It's easy to say that it's the parents' fault that their children are overweight, but everyone else gets to deal with the fallout. With childhood obesity rates approaching 30 % in places, the extra burden on the medical system is staggering. Horace was very much to the point when he said it's your problem when the neighbour's apartment is on fire.

maxaf 11y ago

My child doesn't watch TV, and is surrounded by ad blockers of all possible varieties. Consequently she rejects food that she can't break down easily into ingredients with plain English names. The more general problem with America is the prevalence of business models that depend on sales of people's attention. "If it's free, you're the product" is such an integral part of living in the US these days that most people don't even realize how deeply in hock they are. Cutting the cord, abandoning traditional TV programming (including daytime content-less shows and infomercials) and fighting the good fight against ads will eventually leave consumers free to make their own decisions. I'm worried only that it might take too long: the genetic damage to humanity will already be done.

such_a_casual 11y ago

> they don't have the experience and the awareness to understand the differences between the shows they're watching and the ads they're consuming citation? There's no way anyone under 18 just lacks the ability to distinguish between commercials and the program they're watching. Source: was once a kid

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>distinguish between commercials and the program // Perhaps the parent means the purpose for the programs and the commercials - as in that the commercials aren't just there to entertain you but to manipulate you in to wanting a particular product. Mind you essentially you can say the program is just there to soften you up and create a method to feed your brain the marketing message of the commercials ...
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  My disbelief still stands. What is the age range for human beings who can't distinguish between commercials and programs? You don't think kids get irritated when they're shows are interrupted by commercials? To me this just comes across as an excuse for bad parenting. There were junk food commercials on tv when I was a kid, but I didn't get to have them, because I didn't have money to buy them.
Joof 11y ago
Anecdote, yu-gi-oh; bey-blades; etc. People in general don't really realise the impact that advertising has on them even if they are aware of them.

magicmu 11y ago

What you're saying (and the somewhat muted point in the article) about advertising is totally true, but I don't think it just applies to children. People are hugely susceptible to advertising, which is why it is, and always has been, extremely effective if done correctly. It's especially disturbing when children are specifically targeted by advertisements pitching products are that demonstrably harmful, but it's not the exception. I think that one of the main reasons that most parents don't heavily discourage or forbid their children from watching these ads is that they themselves aren't aware of the broader picture. In that vein, I think education is just as important, if not more-so, than regulation of advertisers.